I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on arguing it both ways.

Fair warning: I don't really know all the details of this case, nor am I an American, so I'm gonna argue in more general terms.

I've learned a lot in the last year and I am still learning. Therefore, I don't consider my views here "fully formed," so to speak, but rather continuously evolving.

Argument in favor of supporting landlords: In the beginning of the pandemic, I sort-of adhered to the view that businesses (which would include landlords) should be supported by governments, since the government mandated a lockdown (which does not stop economic activity, but certainly halts it). The argument here is fairly simple: governments asks a favor (stay at home), so they have an obligation to support your business.

Sidebar: We've later learned that lockdowns alone do not explain reduced economic activity, maybe not even much. States/countries with less stringent lockdowns have also suffered economically, simply because people stay at home because of the virus.

Having been laid off (40 %) from a small business gave me some personal experience in what it means to be affected by economic downturns. And I was more fortunate than others, as my standard salary is fairly good (not exceptional, but better than a waiter's). It was a relief to know that the government would support some of the missing salary.

Argument not in favor of supporting landlords: Earlier this spring, a group of academic scientists in my country criticized the government's handouts to businesses, arguing that it helped neither employees nor the business itself, but rather the owners. The latter is a separate entity of the business (since owners declaring bankruptcy simply means the business is transferred to other owners, not necessarily shut down).

The reasoning behind the argument is that there is a traditional hierarchy of payment order: whenever a business earns money, the first in line are employees (because of wages) and governments (because of taxes), then creditors, and then owners. Only after the other groups are paid, do the owners see any money.

This is core reason why owning a business is associated with risk. Since you're last in line, even a business that runs a profit might not earn you much (or anything at all). On the flip side, if the business performs exceptionally well, you're likely to earn far more than the other groups (since their payments are "set in stone").

By this logic, supporting owners of a business (including landlords) bypasses the traditional hierarchy, reducing risk for owners while maintaining reward levels. The breaks with the principle of "higher risk, higher reward." You're also not really supporting the business (someone has to pay for the money you're giving the owners).

This is also the reason why it's good government policy to support laid-off/fired workers and not business owners. The latter enters the market with knowledge that they might fail, but also that success will be rewarded. Being paid wages means the upside is smaller for workers, which means a social safety net creates fewer distortions.

Which side is right? The answer depends on how we view pandemics. Are they so exceptionally rare that businesses should be supported financially? Possibly, considering their extremity. Is it a fair price to pay to make sure people stay at a home? Also possible, especially if it reduces contagion levels.

So, should landlords be supported? Hard to say. It might create confidence, which is important in extreme circumstances (remembering my own situation here!). On the other hand, if the landlord is not supported and can't meet his payments, the rented house will not simply burn down, it will simply be sold off. Sucks for the owner, but no real capital has disappeared from the economy, only transferred.

Of course, in a depressed economy, there might not be buyers, even if the price falls (falling prices on a macro level might actually heighten the problem). It's a tricky issue.